Damn it! Han shot first!!!!

[billd91]

There are better ways to vent than to spew hateful vitriol. Look it up.

Are there? And who gets to decide whether they are actually better or not?

One of the burdens of living in a free society is having to put up with people deciding to express themselves in ways you don't like. But they still get to to so (subject to the rules of the forum owner in this case).

 

[catsclaw227]

One of the burdens of living in a free society is having to put up with people deciding to express themselves in ways you don't like. But they still get to to so (subject to the rules of the forum owner in this case).

Agreed. I don't tell people how to express themselves, and can accept the fact that some people do it with hate.

But there are better ways than hate to do it. Almost every commonly held spiritual principle espouses love or acceptance or prayer for your enemies or something similar over hate. And Mom always taught me that if I didn't have something nice to say, don't say it at all. I am not perfect about it, believe me... I am just sayin' there are better ways than hate to express frustration or to "vent".

I am guessing you aren't suggesting that hate is a better way to vent than other ways, are you? (Noting that violence = hate).

"Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding." - Mahatma Gandhi

 

[billd91]

Agreed. I don't tell people how to express themselves, and can accept the fact that some people do it with hate.

But there are better ways than hate to do it. Almost every commonly held spiritual principle espouses love or acceptance or prayer for your enemies or something similar over hate. And Mom always taught me that if I didn't have something nice to say, don't say it at all. I am not perfect about it, believe me... I am just sayin' there are better ways than hate to express frustration or to "vent".

I am guessing you aren't suggesting that hate is a better way to vent than other ways, are you? (Noting that violence = hate).

"Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding." - Mahatma Gandhi

I wouldn't exactly equate violence with hate. It's entirely possible to hate something without getting violent toward it just as it's possible to be violent toward something you don't hate. But I would, in fact, say that there are times hate is an appropriate reaction and should be expressed rather than saying nothing at all.

Gandhi, in fact, had many things to say about the abysmally racist system that was the Raj that were not nice but that needed to be said.

And no, I'm not offering moral equivalency to people getting their hate on about George Lucas and his fumbling and feeble movie-making. I have an abiding disgust and disappointment with Lucas and his hubris and the terrible choices he's made with his movies. I think people tend to go a bit overboard on Lucas. But it's not for me to say or even imply that people shouldn't have more strident feelings than mine or that mine are superior.

EDIT: By the way, I've certainly said that people get themselves a bit too worked up about things that are essentially ephemeral. But I consciously try to avoid that now. If the edition wars have taught me anything, they've taught me that one of the most vexing things to experience is someone trying to saying your feelings are somehow illegitimate, not as important, inferior, or otherwise dismissible when they are honestly held. I think that sort of thing drove a lot of bitterness and I see it happening now in the 5e forum as well.

 

[catsclaw227]

OK, well I appreciate your opinion. I guess I just don't understand the reactions of some to something as minor as Lucas tinkering with his movies.

I should clarify... It's minor to me.

 

[Kaodi]

I think there is something of a tradition in fiction that you do not mess with the first published edition of a work willy nilly. Retconning, while commonplace, is usually employed in order to make subsequent works make sense, rather than because you feel like changing it. In this sense, Greedo shooting first had absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the prequels. Even editing Hayden Christiansen into the celebration scene is far more justifiable (though hardly necessary, and definitely in poor taste), because you could at least say that that is what he looked like before his fall to the Dark Side.

I think if we want to really figure this sort of situation out, we should ask ourselves why good ol' J. R. R. Tolkien does not get (much, if any) flak for changing the chapter with Gollum in The Hobbit. As I mentioned above, Tolkien's retcon of this chapter was to set up for The Lord of the Rings. But then, Wikipedia tells me something else I had not known: that Tolkien actually started a rewrite of The Hobbit in order to bring the tone more in line with The Lord of the Rings, but ended up abandoning it because he felt it just was not The Hobbit.

( Another question I thought of, though it is probably somewhat less applicable: if Leonardo da Vinci were to be resurrected from the dead, would you let him paint over the Mona Lisa with a new version of the portrait, or would you tell him to take a hike? )

 

[Dire Bare]

I think there is something of a tradition in fiction that you do not mess with the first published edition of a work willy nilly.

Not really. Plenty of rewrites and "retcons" in fiction throughout the ages.

Retconning, while commonplace, is usually employed in order to make subsequent works make sense, rather than because you feel like changing it.

Incorrect assumption. Authors (or other creators) change their prior works for all sorts of reasons.

In this sense, Greedo shooting first had absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the prequels. Even editing Hayden Christiansen into the celebration scene is far more justifiable (though hardly necessary, and definitely in poor taste), because you could at least say that that is what he looked like before his fall to the Dark Side.

All the changes to Star Wars that you listed, I don't personally care for. As I suspect, do most folks posting in this thread, and many other fans. However, I think it's Lucas full right to make whatever changes he wants for whatever reasons he wants, whether I end up liking them or not. And when I don't care for the changes to a prior work, I don't get so worked up about it that I cry my childhood was stolen from me, or other similar histrionics (not that you do Kaodi, just a general comment).

I think if we want to really figure this sort of situation out, we should ask ourselves why good ol' J. R. R. Tolkien does not get (much, if any) flak for changing the chapter with Gollum in The Hobbit. As I mentioned above, Tolkien's retcon of this chapter was to set up for The Lord of the Rings. But then, Wikipedia tells me something else I had not known: that Tolkien actually started a rewrite of The Hobbit in order to bring the tone more in line with The Lord of the Rings, but ended up abandoning it because he felt it just was not The Hobbit.

Tolkien is not alone in making changes to prior, beloved works, or in starting to make some changes and backing off. Again, totally his right as the creator, IMO. One reason Tolkien doesn't get as much flak as Lucas (although I bet there are some serious nerd fights on Tolkien fan boards on this issue), is that his changes seem to work pretty well. Also, they were made ages ago before the internet, before it became easy to notice and compare changes to prior works, and before the rise of the angry super nerd culture.

( Another question I thought of, though it is probably somewhat less applicable: if Leonardo da Vinci were to be resurrected from the dead, would you let him paint over the Mona Lisa with a new version of the portrait, or would you tell him to take a hike? )

Poor analogy, because Lucas didn't destroy the originals to create his revised "masterpieces". He has certainly tried to suppress the original films in favor of the reworked ones from time to time, but they are still around to enjoy.

If Da Vinci came back to life, purchased the original Mona Lisa from the Louvre, and THEN proceeded to paint over it with a "new-and-improved" version . . . . well, that would be a damn shame. But again, well within his rights to do so. Heck, if I purchased the Mona Lisa and did that, it'd be within my rights to do it . . . .

Art is powerful, important, and meaningful to society and to individuals, as it should be. But at the end of the day, it's just a movie, just a book, or just a painting. We can always make more.

 

[catsclaw227]

Gandhi, in fact, had many things to say about the abysmally racist system that was the Raj that were not nice but that needed to be said.

Yes, but being sternly critical is not the same as being hateful.

I wouldn't exactly equate violence with hate. It's entirely possible to hate something without getting violent toward it just as it's possible to be violent toward something you don't hate. But I would, in fact, say that there are times hate is an appropriate reaction and should be expressed rather than saying nothing at all.

In my notation of violence = hate, I should have been clearer. It was supposed to be in context to the anger at Lucas. I meant that a violent reaction to Lucas changing his works would be worse than just hate, but in that case, the violence would be because of hate, ie violence = hate)

My bad, I should have clarified my statement.

 

[Lwaxy]

He certainly is good at the marketing and money-making stuff.

"Moichandising! Moichandising! Where the real money from the movie is made..."

Yogurt



Couldn't help it

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Couldn't help it

You should be ashamed of yourself. Really. You should have known that I don't have Spaceballs on DVD!

 

[Lwaxy]

Aww sorry, next time I go with Princess Bride.